Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 20:08:05 -0500 Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler > wrote: > > Hi > > > > In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know > > what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard. > > > > I use a /126 if possib

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:04:26 + "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > > > That's a new bit of FUD. References? > > It isn't 'FUD'. > > redistribute connected. > In my opinion it's better not to do blind redistribution. More control means less thing

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler > wrote: >> Hi >> >> In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know >> what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard. >> >> I use a /126 if possible but ha

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Mathias Seiler wrote: > Hi > > In reference to the discussion about /31 for router links, I d'like to know > what is your experience with IPv6 in this regard. > > I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link > between two routers. T

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:07 AM, James Hess wrote: > Then obviously, it's giving every molecule in every soda can an IP address > that is the waste that matters. There are several orders of magnitude between > the number of molecules in a soda can (~65000 times > as many) as the number of addition

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: > On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil" --Donald Knuth > A couple of points for thought: > 1.      Yes

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:43 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > That's a new bit of FUD. References? It isn't 'FUD'. redistribute connected. --- Roland Dobbins // Injustice is relatively easy to bear; wha

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 13:50:00 + "Dobbins, Roland" wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788 > > A couple of points for thought: > > 1.Yes, the IPv6 address space is unimaginably huge. > Even so, when eve

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788 A couple of points for thought: 1. Yes, the IPv6 address space is unimaginably huge. Even so, when every molecule in every soda can in the world has its own IPv6 address in years

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Mathias Seiler wrote: So what do you think? Good? Bad? Ugly? /127 ? ;) This thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nsp/ipv6/20788 had a long discussion regarding this topic. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

<    1   2